Management of Legitimating Educational Standard

Question: Discuss about the Management of Legitimating Educational Standard. Answer: Introduction Shafritz et al. (2015) depict that the theory of scientific management resembles the synthesizeworkflow of an organization and how it influence the economic efficiency and labor productivity. This theory is majorly applicable in the manufacturing industries and its themes are still important in industrial engineeringand management. Frederick Taylor in order to attain high productivity, times should be measured regarding employees efficiency in production and high salary should be provided to them for motivating them. On the other hand, according to the contingency theory, it is explained that there is no best way to organize a corporation and a customized approach should be chosen that could match with the organizational culture (Fiedler 2015). Thus, in this essay, the agreement and disagreement on scientific management theory and contingency theory will be discussed respectively. This will help to evaluate an effective way, to organize a corporation and maintain its working approach es for better productivity and profitability. Bell and Martin (2012) illustrate that Frederick Winslow Taylor is one of the earliest theorists, who analyzed the progress of the working approaches of organization and concludes theory through which this efficiency can be attained. The concerned theorist also proposes The Principles of Scientific Management according to which the productivity of an organization can be enhanced if the work in an organization can be optimized and simplified. This theory is mainly developed for the manufacturing industries; where the profitability of the organization is, relying on the efficiency of the production line (Witzel and Warner 2015). In the conventional time, organizations owner follows no standardization and do not have any motivational factor like incentives and the managers also have little contact with the worker. The prime disadvantage of this approach is that the productivity of the organization is low. Frederick Taylor in 1908 applied his theory of scientific management in a leading automobile organization Ford where employees work slowly and carefully to assemble the final car and it takes several weeks to finish the formulation of the final product (Janoski 2015). The theorist suggested to note every proceeding of the employee and measured it with a stopwatch and as a result, an employee, who carried 12 tons pig-iron from the wagon previously, was capable of carrying 47 tons pig-iron up from the wagon after implementing the arrangements suggested by Taylor (Aitken 2014). It was measured that the production was raised by 300% compared to the previous productivity. Fords production line also distributed into several simple repetitive departments, where employee do not necessarily have to learn any skills and can learn these small chunks of jobs easily (Aitken 2014). The concerned company faces the most revolutionary changes is the high productivity in their production line that ass embles 200 cars per day (Aitken 2014). Hu (2013) moreover states that, this productivity can be further enhanced by the formulating an assembly line that not only take the parts of the cars in the exact point of the assembling but it also accomplishes the work accurately. Thus, to the benefits of the scientific management, Bell and Martin (2012) supports the theory by depicting that it not only reduces the cost of production but it also help in formulating better quality products. Moreover, Hamel and Breen (2013) portrays that the scientific management theory also replaces the old system of the Directorate rule of thumb method and helps in developing healthy cooperation between the management and the labor. In this way, industrial disputes can be reduced and the mutual trust and confidence can be enhanced. In recent times, application of this theory is implemented as it leads to the accomplishment of the work in lesser time and the completion of products is done in lesser times. Thus, delay in the final production can be avoided. Janoski (2015) furthermore, mentions that by dividing the total working procedure into smaller parts ensures the probability of the occurrence of mistakes in the production line and every department can plan effectively to be tter utilize the resources for manufacturing quality products. However, in the above mentioned example, Taylor (2013) stated that due to Fordism theory, the employee feels more pressure on them as they do not have the option to slow down or take rest. Waldow (2015) moreover argues that, even though Taylor theory leads to high productivity, the employee cannot resist the stress for a longer time and quit after a point of time. This can be overcome by providing them high wages so that employee can work under the stressful situation. Janoski (2015) also states that high wages allow a man to fulfill their basic needs along with the luxurious desires in their life. In addition to that, due to excessive job standardization, the loss of individuals initiative is noted. Hu (2013) explains that as all the operational functionality, regarding the job is defined and guidelines are provided to the employee, they are meant to follow that instruction. This not only leads to boredom among the working personnel, but it diminished the creative changes of them to invent a more optimized way. Grachev and Rakitsky (2013) thus, states that there is no fixed way to accomplish the organizational goals and an effective way should be carried out that matches with the culture and the working procedure of the organization. This can be related to the concept of contingency theory. Bell et al. (2015) highlighted that according to Taylor's scientific management theory, the leaders forces the employee to follow certain guidelines and resembles an autocratic management style. However, contingency theory, the stakeholders wish is also considered and the culture of the organization is formulated according to that. This theory believes that of the employees are the crucial asset of the organization and have to be valued for their effort. Moreover, an organization can attain significant competitive advantage if they adopt recent technology and procedure to work. Bell and Martin (2012) mentions that contingency theory thus adopts and employs strategic thinking to mitigate potential risks. Moreover, Grachev and Rakitsky (2013) states that in recent times, the concept of scientific management theory is used in some of the industrial organizations but managers of other contemporary company that they focus on their existing roles and ability and then provide job roles and responsibility. Psychologist Fred Fielder, proposed that effective leaders should utilize their own style of leadership depending on the right situation. Thus, Mikes and Kaplan (2014) portrays that the effectiveness of the group is dependent upon two factors- task motivation/relation motivation and circumstances. According to this theory, managing authorities emphasizes on building good rapport and interpersonal relationships with their subordinates and it denotes the paternalisticstyle of the manager compared to the aristocrat leadership style Fiedler (2015). In this way, the leader can be able to formulate an effective approach for handling a crucial problem and satisfy client needs; however, suffers f rom a problem that employee can take advantage of their managers cooperativeness and their working procedure can be slowed down (Aitken 2014). Thus, concluding that the scientific theory is the better option than the contingency theory. Furthermore, assigning different roles and responsibilities to skilled employees must have to be an integral component of a manager's job; however, using the scientific management theory this is hard to achieve as the managers impose a particular style of working procedure to the employee. Thus, it results in outright project failure irrespective of the fact that the proposed strategy is implemented accordingly. Hamel and Breen (2013) depicted that as the demands of the products among communal is changing, the working procedures should also be changed. This change cannot be achieved if an organization follows a conventional procedure. Contingency theory on the other hand, looks for better opportunity and values the employee behavior to accomplish goals and meet client demands. However, it is also evident that more dependency to the employees leads in low production of the organization and hence it is required to provide a set of rules that should be followed. Moreover, several legislations are also proposed as employees always have the intention to disobey the rules that lead to a great loss for the organization (Bell et al. 2015). Thus, it is best to propose a set of procedures so that employee can accomplish their work in a pretended manner so that everyones ability can be evaluated and it can be assessed whether they can fulfill the organizational goals and objectives (Taylor 2013). In this way, it will be easy to obtain high productivity in less time that result in high financial benefits to the organization. Conclusion Thus, it can be stated that, in conventional times, using Taylor's scientific management theory, the production line in manufacturing company was enhanced. However, implementation of this theory results in boredom among employees and they possess the intention to quit. This strict method of the management resembles autocratic leadership skills where the employees are not valued more but in another theory that is the contingency theory, where the managing authorities value the perception of their employee and allocate them jobs according to their abilities and skills. This theory also signifies the adoption of recent technology and makes changes in the organizational policies and procedure according to the modern demand of the market. However, this adoption of recent technology also allows the employee to find gaps for not following the rules and disobey them. This results in negative impact of the organizations profitability and thus it is better to guide them based on a proposed set if rules that is done conventionally by Taylor. Thus, Taylors scientific management theory is better than the contingency theory. Reference List Aitken, H.G., 2014.Scientific Management in Action: Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal, 1908-1915. Princeton University Press. Bell, R.L. and Martin, J.S., 2012. The relevance of scientific management and equity theory in everyday managerial communication situations.Journal of Management Policy and Practice,13(3). Bell, R.L., Kennebrew, D. and Blyden, L., 2015. An Increasing Utility for the Early Management Approaches. Chavez, R., Gimenez, C., Fynes, B., Wiengarten, F. and Yu, W., 2013. Internal lean practices and operational performance: The contingency perspective of industry clockspeed.International Journal of Operations Production Management,33(5), pp.562-588. Fiedler, F., 2015. Contingency theory of leadership.Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership, p.232. Grachev, M. and Rakitsky, B., 2013. Historic horizons of Frederick Taylor's scientific management.Journal of Management History,19(4), pp.512-527. Hamel, G. and Breen, B., 2013.The future of management. Harvard Business Press. Hu, S.J., 2013. Evolving paradigms of manufacturing: From mass production to mass customization and personalization.Procedia CIRP,7, pp.3-8. Janoski, T., 2015. The New Division of Labor as Lean Production.International Journal of Sociology,45(2), pp.85-94. Mikes, A. and Kaplan, R.S., 2014, October. Towards a contingency theory of enterprise risk management. AAA. Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S. and Jang, Y.S., 2015.Classics of organization theory. Cengage Learning. Taylor, R.B., 2013.Family medicine: principles and practice. Springer Science Business Media. Waldow, F., 2015. From Taylor to Tyler to no child left behind: legitimating educational standards.Prospects,45(1), pp.49-62. Witzel, M. and Warner, M., 2015. Taylorism revisited: Culture, management theory and paradigm-shift.Cambridge Judge Business SchoolWorking paper number 01/2015.